UK Supreme Court Cases (dates and ruling)

Woolmington v DPP

1935 - All suspects are to be presumed innocent until proven guilty

The GCHQ case

1985 - Those who work in the interest of national security are not allowed to join trade unions and withhold their work (strike)

Gillick v West Norfolk & Wisbech Area Health Authority

1986 - >16yr olds can make medical decisions without parental consent.

Factortame vs Secretary of State for Transport

1990 - EU law took precedent over UK law

links to Brexit + sovereignty

R v R

1991 - Rape can still occur within a marriage and is punishable by law. → Marital rape

Spanner Case

1993 - Consent is not a valid defence to a charge of actual bodily harm or common assault.

Belmarsh Case

2004 - The legislation made to allow prisoners held without trial because of anti-terrorism was deemed incompatible with the ECHR → Can not hold people without charge.

limits powers of PM as judiciary still holds executive to account (Blair)

R v Chaytor

2010 - Parliamentary privilege does not protect MPs from criminal prosecution.

link to judicial neutrality + upholding parliamentary sovereignty and rule of law + healthy separation of powers by displaying the courts as completely independent and neutral

Bull v Hall

2013 - Cant discriminate against others based off of personal belief.

Gina Miller Case 2017

2017 - Government may not use prerogative powers to undertake action that would remove rights previously granted under primary legislation. → May tried to trigger Article 50 to fasttrack Brexit without consulting Parliament.

media dubbed justices as “enemies of the people” - insinuating that judges arent neutral and are becoming too political → interfering in the politics of elected officials while not being elected themselves → this argument claims the courts lack neutrality and threaten democracy.

Gina Miller Case 2019

2019 - Prerogative power of prorogation is unlawful and subject to judicial review.

(Bojo avoiding accountability and scrutiny on his Brexit plans during the Brexit crisis) link to judicial neutrality → used to argue against judicial neutrality by saying its getting involved in politics that concerns elected officials (when judges are not elected themselves) → however, this interpretation misses point of ruling and it instead upholds parliamentary sovereignty + protects healthy separation of powers by ensuring Executive receives appropriate scrutiny from Parliament about his Brexit plans + preventing Executive from using powers of royal prerogative to avoid accountability.

AM v Secretary of State for the Home Department

2020 - The deportation of a man with HIV who had come to the UK from Zimbabwe who had committed serious offences was blocked as it was argued that his life would be dramatically shortened in Zimbabwe owing to lack of proper medical care.

Uber BV vs Aslam

2021 - Uber drivers were classified as ‘workers’ within the definition of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and were thus entitled to minimum wage and holiday pay.

used statutory interpretation/ common law to apply uber drivers to the definition of workers on the ERA - providing and extending protections (HR?) to individuals and applying the purpose of the law (to protect vulnerable individuals). → displays how the court holds large corporations to account but also holds the executive regulatory frameworks to account - by checking they apply in practise and fixing any loopholes →courts role in ensuring Parliament’s original intent is not undermined. This ruling ensured that the Minimum Wage Act actually applied to the modern '“gig economy”. and if Parliament disagreed with the interpretation, they would have to pass new legislation to redefine “worker” → displaying how the Court can move a topic to the top of the legislative agenda. case set legal precedent and influenced policy shifts to fit the new legal standard → pressuring government to update enforcement via agencies like HMRC.

critics argue that this is ‘judicial activism’ → unelected judges make decisions with huge economic consequences that are potentially ruinous for some businesses - that should arguably be left to elected politicians.

Independence Referendum Scotland

2022 - Devolved nations can not hold referendums without the sovereign/ central governments permission.

upholding and reinforcing the principle of parliamentary sovereignty as Westminster is sovereign government in terms of devolution. - not allowing other devolved nations undermine its sovereignty.

court ruled that Scottish governments plan to hold a referendum was ultra vires (beyond its power) - claiming that it was a “reserved matter” for Westminster

courts interpreted the Scotland Act 1998 passed by Parliament and ensured that it was strictly followed, rather than expanded

→ arguments concerning judicial neutrality - courts were answering a technical legal question, not a political one about whether or not Scotland should be independent. ruling was unanimous (5-0), suggesting a legal consensus based on the statute → bolstering image of judicial neutrality.

critics say that ruling ignores the ‘democratic mandate’ of the Scottish Parliament - can court truly remain neutral when their rulings have such massive political consequences?

Safety of Rwanda case

2023 - Rwanda is not safe and thus the plan to deport migrants there was unlawful.

limits of executive policy when it conflicts with fundamental human rights

used power of judicial review to determine that the home secretarys policy was unlawful (suella braverman) . found that policy breached several acts of parliament - human rights act 1998, and the asylum and immigration appeals act 1993. courts applies rule of law → shows that even with a clear democratic mandate, executive must still operate within the law. → forces the executive to negoiate a new legally binding treaty with Rwanda to add more safeguards → proving the Courts power to dictate the terms on which government policy can proceed.

influenced parliament by triggering new legislation → in a direct response to ruling, govt introduced the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024. Act used parl sov to legally declare Rwanda safe → effectively trying to ‘override’ Courts factual ruling.

highlights the ping-pong between the branches - court interprets law, parliament then changes law to bypass courts interpretation.

can the courts ever be truly neutral when ruling on high-stakes political issues such as these?

Mercer v Alternative Future Group Ltd

2024 - Taking industrial actions against your employer (within legal process) is protected under the HRA and employees should not suffer detrimental treatment as a result.

For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers

2025
→ devolved matter, Scottish were dealing with it but did not like the outcome to went to the final court of appeal in England.

For the purposes of the Equality Act 2010, the definition of ‘sex’ is biological sex.
→ Wanted to ban trans women from women-only spaces. - the Scottish courts said you can’t do that because it violated the Gender Recognition Act 2004.

‘not a victory of one side over the other’ only establishing legal clarity, not intending to divide society → example of how even a “neutral” legal interpretation can have explosive political consequences.